You could have avoided many of the comments in this thread if you didn't emphasize the no-KYC part in your OP. The grin smiley for the no-KYC category makes a lot of sense because it is a joke to claim something like that. You are a no-KYC exchange only on paper. In reality, your terms sate that users will pass through AML/KYC procedures from time to time or if required. On top of that, you partner with other exchanges that also require KYC and have their own filters and understanding of what requires further checks and what doesn't.
Why don’t we emphasize this? We do not require KYC verification, but our partners may request it in rare cases when illegal funds, flagged as suspicious, are detected.
Let’s imagine a situation: a client comes to our platform and realizes that there is no need to undergo KYC verification. This allows them to save time on filling out data forms, which means they gain a valuable resource — time, a fast exchange, and the best available rate, all within the legal framework.
However, if the client knows their funds are illegal and attempts to push them through, they get caught. Perhaps the purpose of such "buts" mentioned in the terms of use is precisely to stop the spread of illegal activities that have led to the ruin of hundreds of thousands of people. These funds may have been stolen, laundered, and reused. The problem is that many people look at the situation one-sidedly, without considering other factors that result not only in financial losses but also in more serious consequences.